Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 75 references

First Constraint on Axion-Photon Coupling $g_{\gamma}$ from Neutron Star Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that a neutron star's restored chiral symmetry sets the axion field to a large VEV whose Yukawa tail induces a frequency-dependent radio polarization rotation, giving the first f_a-independent constraint on the…

desk verdict Clever new mechanism for probing gγ without f_a, but the claimed bound is empty because gγ and the pulsar factor A are degenerate in the fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07546 v1 pith:PPTYPGWF submitted 2025-06-09 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Jun-Chen Wang , Shunshun Cao , Jinchen Jiang , Yandong Liu , Qing-Hong Cao , Lijing Shao This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE PACS 14.80.Va95.35.+d97.60.Gb
keywords axion-photoncouplingaxiondecayconstantneutronstarpulsarpolarizationbirefringenceradius-to-frequencymappingPSRB1919+21FASTtelescope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Neutron stars are dense enough to restore QCD chiral symmetry, and the paper argues that this forces the axion field inside the star to a large value π f_a rather than zero. Outside the star the field falls off in a Yukawa tail, and radio photons crossing this region have their polarization rotated by an angle that depends on the dimensionless axion-photon coupling g_γ only — the decay constant f_a cancels out. Using 1–1.5 GHz FAST observations of PSR B1919+21 and a radius-to-frequency mapping that ties emission altitude to wavelength, the authors fit the observed Stokes parameters and obtain the first constraint |g_γ| < 0.93 at 1σ (1.33 at 2σ) for axion masses below $10^{-11}$ eV. The authors note that systematic errors from the rotation-measure uncertainty are not included in these quoted confidence levels. The result matters because it opens a way to probe the quantized coupling g_γ, a quantity linked to the global structure of the Standard Model, without relying on large f_a suppression or exotic cosmological relics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the macroscopic axion field profile a(r) around a neutron star, with the VEV π f_a inside and a Yukawa tail outside. The key identity is the cancellation: because the field amplitude scales as f_a, the ratio (a_f − a_i)/(2f_a) in the birefringence formula becomes independent of f_a and leaves only g_γ. The second essential piece is the radius-frequency mapping ω_c ∝ $γ^{3}$ $P_NS^{{-1/2}}$ $r^{{-1/2}}$, which converts the radial profile into a frequency-dependent rotation that can be read off a single pulsar's radio spectrum.

What would settle it

Resolve the polarization angle by pulse phase: geometric (rotating-vector) effects create a phase sweep that shifts with frequency, whereas the axion rotation is phase-independent; observing such a frequency-shifting sweep would rule out the axion interpretation. A second check: compare the best-fit A against independent estimates of γ and R_NS; if γ must sit far outside $10^{2}$–$10^{3}$, the model is absorbing non-axion physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a neutron star's axion field profile — π f_a inside the star, π f_a (R_NS/r) $e^{{-m_a(r-R_NS)}}$ outside — combined with the photon birefringence formula Δα = (g_γ/2f_a)(a_f − a_i), produces a rotation angle Δα(ω) = −6.59 g_γ A (ω/GHz)^2 exp[−m_a R_NS(0.24 A (GHz/ω)^2 − 1)] in which every f_a dependence has cancelled. The parameter A = (R_NS/10 km)(P_NS/1 s)(100/γ)^6 encodes the star's radius, spin period, and magnetospheric Lorentz factor. For ultralight axions the exponential is negligible and the rotation is simply ∝ g_γ A ω². Fitting this law to FAST data on PSR B1919+21 with g_γ, m_a, A, and the initial polarization angle α_0 as free parameters yields |g_γ| < 0.93 at 1σ for m_a < $10^{-11}$ eV, and sensitivity degrades for m_a > $10^{-10}$ eV because of the exponential suppression.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis assumes that a pulsar's intrinsic polarization angle at emission is the same at all radio frequencies, so any frequency dependence in the observed data is attributed to the axion; if the pulsar's magnetosphere itself produces frequency-dependent polarization angles, the constraint could be mimicking ordinary astrophysics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Axion searches no longer have to be suppressed by an unknown $f_a$: this method isolates the dimensionless coupling $g_\gamma$ directly from a single star's radio spectrum.
  • For $m_a < 10^{-11}$ eV the bound is mass-independent, so a positive detection would be a clean $\omega^2$ signature rather than a broad parameter-space fit.
  • The same technique applied to other pulsars with well-measured polarization would produce independent $g_\gamma$ bounds, and combining them could push the limit below 0.9.
  • For axions heavier than about $10^{-10}$ eV the exponential tail suppresses the signal, so the method's reach is limited to ultra-light masses.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The cancellation that makes $g_\gamma$ observable relies on the axion settling at exactly $\pi f_a$ inside the star; any equation-of-state effect that shifts this value would re-introduce $f_a$ dependence and change the predicted normalization — a robustness test the paper does not run.
  • Pulsar polarization is known to have intrinsic frequency structure; a natural next check is to fit the same data with a slowly varying polynomial background and see whether the $\omega^2$ axion term survives — this would separate the axion hypothesis from radius-to-frequency mapping artifacts.
  • Because the signal scales as $A \propto \gamma^{-6}$, the method is most sensitive to old, slow pulsars with small Lorentz factors; targeting such objects could improve the constraint far more than collecting more photons.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that in neutron stars, restoration of chiral symmetry shifts the QCD axion field to a VEV of order πf_a, with a Yukawa-like profile outside the star. Using radius-frequency mapping to assign a radial emission height to each radio frequency, the authors convert the axion-induced birefringence into a predicted frequency-dependent polarization rotation that is formally independent of f_a. They fit this model to FAST polarization data of PSR B1919+21 and report |g_γ|<0.93 at 1σ for m_a<10^-11 eV, with weaker constraints at higher mass. The paper includes a derivation of the axion profile from a modified UV potential (Scenario II) and a derivation of the radius-frequency mapping.

Significance. The idea of using an f_a-independent axion VEV in neutron stars to probe the quantized coupling g_γ is original and, if the underlying scenario is realized, would be an interesting complement to laboratory searches. The authors use real FAST observations and are transparent about the omission of RM systematics. However, the headline constraint is not supported by the analysis as written: in the massless limit the observable depends only on the product g_γ A, with A a free parameter, so the reported 1σ bound on g_γ is derived only with an unstated prior. Together with the model-dependence of the axion profile and the untested assumption of frequency-independent intrinsic polarization angles, this makes the current claim too fragile to be published as a constraint.

major comments (4)
  1. [Constraints from FAST data, Eq. (11)] In the limit m_a < 10^-11 eV, Eq. (11) gives Δα(ω_c) = -6.59 g_γ A (ω_c/GHz)^2. The fit described in the same section treats the pulsar factor A as a free parameter (along with g_γ, m_a, and α_0). For m_a below this threshold the likelihood depends on g_γ and A only through the product g_γ A, since Q_th and U_th in Eqs. (12)-(13) are cos/sin of that product plus α_0. The transformation (g_γ, A) -> (g_γ/s, s A) leaves every prediction unchanged, so the profile likelihood in g_γ is flat and no finite 1σ interval |g_γ| < 0.93 follows from the fit without an external prior on A (or on γ, which enters A through the sixth power). The authors must impose and justify an independent constraint on A, or quote the constraint as one on the product g_γ A rather than on g_γ.
  2. [Axion detection, paragraph before Eq. (5)] The paper assumes 'the frequency-independent nature of initial polarization angles [52]' and attributes all observed frequency dependence of the polarization position angle to the axion. This is not established for pulsars: radius-to-frequency mapping itself implies emission at different heights for different frequencies, and magnetospheric propagation (including refraction and mode coupling) produces frequency-dependent position angles independent of any axion effect. Since the predicted axion signal is purely frequency dependent, this assumption is load-bearing. A quantitative assessment of the intrinsic frequency dependence for PSR B1919+21 (or a multi-frequency control with a different pulsar) is needed before a signal can be attributed to axion birefringence.
  3. [Axion phase transition in neutron stars, Scenario II, Eq. (21)] The derived neutron-star profile and the subsequent bound are contingent on a very specific UV potential: β1=0 with parameters satisfying inequality (21), which permits the vacuum to shift to a≈πf_a when ⟨qq⟩→0. No concrete UV completion realizing this choice is given, and the claim in the abstract to derive 'the first constraint' from neutron stars is therefore conditional on a non-generic model assumption. The authors should either provide an explicit model satisfying Eq. (21) or soften the claim to a constraint within Scenario II. A useful additional check would be to show how the constraint changes as β1 and the ratio m_q⟨qq⟩/(√2 Λ^3 f_a |λ1|) are varied within the allowed region.
  4. [Constraints from FAST data, after Faraday rotation] The text states that 'the possible systematic errors caused by RM uncertainty is not included,' even though an RM uncertainty of ±1.1 rad m^-2 corresponds to roughly 3° of polarization angle across the 1-1.5 GHz band. For a signal whose amplitude is to be constrained at the order of a radian, a 3° (≈0.05 rad) unmodelled uncertainty is not negligible and should be marginalised over or added in quadrature. The authors should quantify how the reported contours change when the RM is varied by its uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion vs. Constraints section] The 3σ limit quoted in the Conclusion (|g_γ|<1.93) differs from the value 1.73 given in the main text; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Title and abstract] The subscript in g_γ is rendered with a space in the title and abstract; fix the typographical rendering.
  3. [Reference [52]] Reference [52] is a textbook; please provide a primary reference or a specific chapter/table for the claimed frequency independence of initial polarization angles.
  4. [Eq. (8) and fitted A] Since A is defined by Eq. (8) in terms of R_NS, P_NS, and γ but is treated as a free parameter, the relationship between the fitted A and the nominal pulsar parameters should be discussed; in particular, the value of γ implied by the best-fit A should be compared with the expected range γ ~ 10^2-10^3 cited in the Appendix.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Ultra-light limit degenerates g_gamma with the free pulsar factor A; the headline bound |g_gamma|<0.93 reduces to the unstated prior on A.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Constraints from FAST data', Eq. (11) and fit definitions (12)-(14)]
    "For ultralight axions (ma <10^{-11} eV), the exponential factor becomes negligible, yielding Δα = −6.59 g_γ A (ω_c/GHz)^2 ... Axion parameters were constrained via χ^2 fitting, involving four free parameters: g_γ, m_a, pulsar factor A, and initial polarization angle α_0."

    In the ultra-light limit, the theoretical Stokes parameters depend on g_γ and A only through the product B = −6.59 g_γ A / GHz^2: Q_th = cos(B ω_c^2 + α_0), U_th = sin(B ω_c^2 + α_0). The likelihood is therefore invariant under (g_γ, A) → (g_γ/s, s A). With A a free parameter and no stated prior or independent constraint on it, the profile likelihood in g_γ is flat: any value of g_γ can be exactly compensated by rescaling A. The quoted 1σ interval |g_γ|<0.93 is thus not determined by the FAST data but is an artifact of the (unstated) range or prior assigned to A. The headline 'constraint' is, by construction, a re-parameterization of the input A rather than an independent measurement of g_γ.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular: the birefringence formula (3) is standard; the axion profile (2) is derived in the Supplemental Material from an explicit potential with a stated scenario; and the radius-frequency mapping (5) follows from dipole geometry and curvature radiation. The claimed f_a independence is an algebraic cancellation from the assumed VEV a = π f_a, not a fitted result. Self-citations are not load-bearing: the companion paper [60] supplies the rotation-measure calibration but is not the basis of the central model. The single serious tautological element is the ultra-light mass limit. There, Eq. (11) makes all predictions depend only on the product g_γ A, while A is explicitly a free parameter in the χ^2 fit. Consequently, no finite 1σ interval on |g_γ| can be obtained from the data alone; the reported limit reduces to the implicit prior on A. This makes the paper's headline claim, 'first constraint |g_γ|<0.93', a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The paper also notes that 'the possible systematic errors caused by RM uncertainty is not included,' which further weakens the quantitative claim but is not itself circularity. Because the central result is not identifiable without an external constraint on A, I assign a partial-circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of assumptions that are not independently verified in the paper: a specific modified axion potential (Scenario II, Eqs. 18-21), complete chiral symmetry restoration in neutron stars (⟨qq⟩=0), a static Yukawa profile with a surface discontinuity (Eq. 25), the radius-frequency mapping (Eq. 29), and a frequency-independent intrinsic polarization angle. Four parameters are fitted to one dataset. The constraint is therefore only as reliable as this assumption chain.

free parameters (4)
  • gγ = |gγ| < 0.93 (1σ), 1.33 (2σ), 1.73/1.93 (3σ)
    The central coupling; fitted from the amplitude of frequency-dependent polarization rotation.
  • m_a = constrained region m_a < 10^-11 eV; value scanned
    Axion mass; fitted along with gγ; the constraint is mass-independent below 10^-11 eV.
  • A = fitted value not reported
    Pulsar factor A=(R_NS/10km)(P_NS/1s)(100/γ)^6; absorbs uncertain Lorentz factor γ and radius; fitted as free parameter.
  • α0 = fitted value not reported
    Initial polarization angle; assumed constant across frequency; fitted from data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Chiral symmetry is fully restored inside neutron stars (⟨qq⟩=0), making the in-medium axion VEV exactly π f_a (Eq. 25).
    Invoked to set a_i=π f_a at the photon emission point; neutron star densities reduce the condensate but do not necessarily eliminate it.
  • ad hoc to paper The axion potential includes a UV term with β1=0 and parameters satisfying inequality (21), so the vacuum shifts in dense matter (Supplemental Scenario II).
    The specific potential modification is introduced solely to create the phase transition; no external evidence is given for this term.
  • domain assumption The radius-frequency mapping ω_c = 2.82 γ^3 / sqrt(P_NS r) (Eq. 29) describes the radio emission radius.
    Standard curvature radiation with dipole field and last open field lines; approximate.
  • domain assumption The initial polarization position angle of the emitted radiation is strictly frequency independent (ref [52]).
    Used to absorb all frequency-independent offset; contradicted by known frequency-dependent PPA in many pulsars.
  • domain assumption The axion field outside the star is the static Yukawa solution matching a=π f_a at r=R_NS (Eq. 25), with no derivative matching.
    Borrowed from refs [40-42]; not a self-consistent solution at the stellar surface.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First Constraint on Axion-Photon Coupling $g_{\gamma}$ from Neutron Star Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPTYPGWF

@misc{pith2026250607546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First Constraint on Axion-Photon Coupling $g_\gamma$ from Neutron Star Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPTYPGWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07546}
}
abstract

We propose a novel method to detect axions which uniquely depends on the dimensionless axion-photon coupling $g_{\gamma}$, independent of the suppressive axion decay constant $f_a$. Using neutron star PSR B1919+21 data from the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope, we derive the first constraint $|g_{\gamma}|<0.93$ at $1\sigma$ confidence level for ultra-light axions ($m_a < 10^{-11}$ eV).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07546 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the axion field profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. illustrates the frequency-dependent polarization rotation, indicating clear upper limits for both ωc and ∆α. The maximum photon frequency at the neutron star surface is ωmax = r 0.24 A GHz, (9) with the maximum rotation angle |∆α|max = π 2 gγ, (10) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 ωc / GHz |Δα| / rad π 2 gγ - - - ma = 10-10 eV ––– ma = 10-12 eV  = 1  = 0.1 FIG. 2. Polarization rotation angle ∆α as a function of pho… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Constraints on the axion-photon coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [52]

    Lyne and F

    A. Lyne and F. Graham-Smith, Pulsar Astronomy (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B88, 123 (1979), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 91, 487 (1980)]

    1979

  3. [2]

    J. M. Pendleburyet al., Phys. Rev. D92, 092003 (2015), arXiv:1509.04411 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  5. [4]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  6. [5]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  7. [6]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  8. [7]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

Show all 75 references
  1. [8]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  2. [9]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  3. [10]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 557 (2010), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)], arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Srednicki, Nucl

    M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B260, 689 (1985). 4

    1985

  5. [12]

    Hucks, Phys

    J. Hucks, Phys. Rev. D43, 2709 (1991)

    1991

  6. [13]

    Tong, JHEP07, 104 (2017), arXiv:1705.01853 [hep- th]

    D. Tong, JHEP07, 104 (2017), arXiv:1705.01853 [hep- th]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    T. D. Brennan and S. Hong, (2023), arXiv:2306.00912 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Y. Choi, M. Forslund, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 121601 (2024), arXiv:2309.03937 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    P. W. Graham, S. Hacıömeroğlu, D. E. Kaplan, Z. Omarov, S. Rajendran, and Y. K. Semertzidis, Phys. Rev. D103, 055010 (2021), arXiv:2005.11867 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Agrawal, D

    P. Agrawal, D. E. Kaplan, O. Kim, S. Rajendran, and M. Reig, Phys. Rev. D108, 015017 (2023), arXiv:2210.17547 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    J. A. Dror, S. Gori, J. M. Leedom, and N. L. Rodd, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 181801 (2023), arXiv:2210.06481 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    S.Karanth etal.(JEDI),Phys.Rev.X13,031004(2023), arXiv:2208.07293 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    S. J. Asztalos et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 041301 (2010), arXiv:0910.5914 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [21]

    B. M. Brubaker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 061302 (2017), arXiv:1610.02580 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    A. A. Geraci, C. Bradley, D. Gao, J. Weinstein, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 031304 (2019), arXiv:1808.00540 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D37, 1237 (1988)

    1988

  17. [24]

    Galanti, Phys

    G. Galanti, Phys. Rev. D107, 043006 (2023), arXiv:2202.11675 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Q.-H. Cao, Z. Liu, and J.-C. Wang, JCAP01, 099 (2025), arXiv:2307.15602 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Li and K.-P

    S.-P. Li and K.-P. Xie, (2024), arXiv:2412.15749 [hep- ph]

    2024

  20. [27]

    M.HoseiniandM.Mehrafarin,Phys.Lett.B797,134841 (2019), arXiv:1908.03337 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Fujita, K

    T. Fujita, K. Murai, H. Nakatsuka, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D103, 043509 (2021), arXiv:2011.11894 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Agrawal, A

    P. Agrawal, A. Hook, and J. Huang, JHEP07, 138 (2020), arXiv:1912.02823 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1156 (1982)

    1982

  24. [31]

    Pospelov, S

    M. Pospelov, S. Pustelny, M. P. Ledbetter, D. F. Jackson Kimball, W. Gawlik, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 021803 (2013), arXiv:1205.6260 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D91, 065014 (2015), arXiv:1412.0789 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Q.-H. Cao, S. Ge, Y. Liu, and J.-C. Wang, (2024), arXiv:2411.04749 [hep-ph]

    2024

  27. [34]

    Reece, JHEP10, 116 (2023), arXiv:2309.03939 [hep- ph]

    M. Reece, JHEP10, 116 (2023), arXiv:2309.03939 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Agrawal and A

    P. Agrawal and A. Platschorre, JHEP01, 169 (2024), arXiv:2309.03934 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, and L.-T. Wang, JHEP05, 325 (2024), arXiv:2309.05636 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    M. A. Ruderman and P. G. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 196, 51 (1975)

    1975

  31. [38]

    Lesch, J

    H. Lesch, J. Gil, and P. Shukla, Space science reviews 68, 349 (1994)

    1994

  32. [39]

    J. Qiu, H. Tong, and H. Wang, The Astrophysical Journal958, 78 (2023)

    2023

  33. [40]

    Hook and J

    A. Hook and J. Huang, JHEP06, 036 (2018), arXiv:1708.08464 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Huang, M

    J. Huang, M. C. Johnson, L. Sagunski, M. Sakellariadou, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D99, 063013 (2019), arXiv:1807.02133 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Kumamoto, J

    M. Kumamoto, J. Huang, C. Drischler, M. Baryakhtar, and S. Reddy, (2024), arXiv:2410.21590 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31, 260 (1980)

    1980

  37. [44]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept.870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Agrawal, M

    P. Agrawal, M. Nee, and M. Reig, JHEP10, 141 (2022), arXiv:2206.07053 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Di Luzio, F

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D96, 075003 (2017), arXiv:1705.05370 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Di Luzio, F

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 031801 (2017), arXiv:1610.07593 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [48]

    S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231 (1990)

    1990

  42. [49]

    Harari and P

    D. Harari and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B289, 67 (1992)

    1992

  43. [50]

    M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D100, 015040 (2019), arXiv:1903.02666 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Sikivie, Rev

    P. Sikivie, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015004 (2021), arXiv:2003.02206 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The raw data are obtained from the FAST data center (https://fast.bao.ac.cn/cms/category/data_center_en)

  46. [54]

    Jiang, Y

    P. Jiang, Y. Yue, H. Gan, R. Yao, H. Li, G. Pan, J. Sun, D. Yu, H. Liu, N. Tang, L. Qian, J. Lu, J. Yan, B. Peng, S. Zhang, Q. Wang, Q. Li, D. Li, and FAST Collaboration, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy62, 959502 (2019), arXiv:1903.06324 [astro- ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Jiang, N.-Y

    P. Jiang, N.-Y. Tang, L.-G. Hou, M.-T. Liu, M. Krčo, L. Qian, J.-H. Sun, T.-C. Ching, B. Liu, Y. Duan, Y.-L. Yue, H.-Q.Gan, R.Yao, H.Li, G.-F.Pan, D.-J.Yu, H.-F. Liu, D. Li, B. Peng, and J. Yan, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics20, 064 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    F. V. Melo, A. M. Souza, I. S. Oliveira, and R. S. Sarthour, Phys. Open6, 100053 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    van Straten and M

    W. van Straten and M. Bailes, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.28, 1 (2011), arXiv:1008.3973 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. W. Hotan, W. van Straten, and R. N. Manchester, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.21, 302 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0404549

    2004

  51. [59]

    Hobbs, R

    G. Hobbs, R. Edwards, and R. Manchester, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.369, 655 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0603381

    2006

  52. [60]

    S. Cao, J. Jiang, J. Dyks, K. Lee, J. Lu, L. S. Oswald, W. Wang, and R. Xu, Astrophys. J.983, 43 (2025), arXiv:2411.18999 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, JHEP01, 034 (2016), arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Banks and N

    T. Banks and N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. D83, 084019 (2011), arXiv:1011.5120 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Witten, Nature Phys.14, 116 (2018), arXiv:1710.01791 [hep-th]

    E. Witten, Nature Phys.14, 116 (2018), arXiv:1710.01791 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Harlow and H

    D. Harlow and H. Ooguri, Commun. Math. Phys.383, 1669 (2021), arXiv:1810.05338 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Alvey and M

    J. Alvey and M. Escudero, JHEP01, 032 (2021), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 223 (2023)], arXiv:2009.03917 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Dine, (2022), arXiv:2207.01068 [hep-ph]

    M. Dine, (2022), arXiv:2207.01068 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Pietroni, Phys

    M. Pietroni, Phys. Rev. D72, 043535 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505615. 5

    2005 arXiv

  60. [68]

    K. A. Olive and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D77, 043524 (2008), arXiv:0709.3825 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 231301 (2010), arXiv:1001.4525 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  62. [70]

    T. D. Cohen, R. J. Furnstahl, and D. K. Griegel, Phys. Rev. C45, 1881 (1992)

    1992

  63. [71]

    G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 2720 (1991)

    1991

  64. [72]

    Jamin, Phys

    M. Jamin, Phys. Lett. B538, 71 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0201174

    2002

  65. [73]

    Moodley, (2024), arXiv:2403.18112 [hep-ph]

    P. Moodley, (2024), arXiv:2403.18112 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Radhakrishnan and D

    V. Radhakrishnan and D. Cooke, (1969)

    1969

  67. [75]

    axion charge

    Z. H. Xue, K. J. Lee, X. D. Gao, and R. X. Xu, Phys. Rev. D108, 083009 (2023), arXiv:2310.06660 [astro- ph.HE]. Axion phase transition in neutron stars and corresponding profile The axion profile presented in the main text plays a crucial role in our analysis. While previous w...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.